How to write consistently boring scientific literature

by: Kaj Sand-Jensen

Oikos, Vol. 116, No. 5. (May 2007), pp. 723-727.

View FullText article

Blackwell Synergy, DOI, IngentaConnect

Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

Find related articles from these CiteULike users

rickl, brian, toomash, orca, Borelli, cmunson, lfriedl, sterovetta, maike, echinotrix, awooga, yEvb0, scpeters, jford, pratap, williamdwalker, sjones, pseudopharm, cjeans, sensesublime, TaqSys, soumitri, GeeSharpMinor, tumo, rebeccamancy, ascharle, suizan, kaniko, erklaerbaer, boosda, kdl (group), MACLab (group), Neuroscience (group), STS (group), ColDyn (group), feminist_technoscience (group), OrganizationResearch (group), Enactment (group), Academic Writing, Literacies and Discourse (group), hejibo

Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

2007, academia, biology, diss, ecology, evolution, forfun, fun, funny, general, generalinterest, history, meta-howto, methods, no-tag, publishing, read, research, science, science_writing, science-writing, scientific, scientific-writing, social_study, teaching, tips, usage, wissA, write, writing

Abstract

Although scientists typically insist that their research is very exciting and adventurous when they talk to laymen and prospective students, the allure of this enthusiasm is too often lost in the predictable, stilted structure and language of their scientific publications. I present here, a top-10 list of recommendations for how to write consistently boring scientific publications. I then discuss why we should and how we could make these contributions more accessible and exciting.

@article{citeulike:1242600, abstract = {Although scientists typically insist that their research is very exciting and adventurous when they talk to laymen and prospective students, the allure of this enthusiasm is too often lost in the predictable, stilted structure and language of their scientific publications. I present here, a top-10 list of recommendations for how to write consistently boring scientific publications. I then discuss why we should and how we could make these contributions more accessible and exciting.}, author = {Sand-Jensen, Kaj }, citeulike-article-id = {1242600}, doi = {10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.15674.x}, issn = {0030-1299}, journal = {Oikos}, month = {May}, number = {5}, pages = {723--727}, posted-at = {2007-06-16 03:51:37}, priority = {2}, publisher = {Blackwell Publishing}, title = {How to write consistently boring scientific literature}, url = {http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.15674.x}, volume = {116}, year = {2007} }

RIS record

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:1242600 L3 - citeulike-article-id:1242600 TI - How to write consistently boring scientific literature JF - Oikos VL - 116 IS - 5 SP - 723 EP - 727 PB - Blackwell Publishing SN - 0030-1299 N2 - Although scientists typically insist that their research is very exciting and adventurous when they talk to laymen and prospective students, the allure of this enthusiasm is too often lost in the predictable, stilted structure and language of their scientific publications. I present here, a top-10 list of recommendations for how to write consistently boring scientific publications. I then discuss why we should and how we could make these contributions more accessible and exciting. AU - Sand-Jensen, Kaj PY - 2007/05// UR - http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.15674.x ER -

RIS BibTeX